Her tort is no cakewalk
A former Dalhousie PhD student is suing the university after repeatedly failing her examinations and being dismissed from her programme.
Ibtesam Ahmed, formerly in the faculty of engineering, was dismissed after failing comprehensive exams three times. After the third time, she took her case to court.
Ahmed’s supervisor set her first examination, but, according to regulations, it ought to have been done by her supervisory committee. Ahmed appealed to the dean after she failed, who ordered a re-examination.
The supervisor and entire supervisory committee resigned.
After failing her second exam, Ahmed claimed the individual responsible for evaluations was unfamiliar with her field of study. Again, she was dismissed, then given another examination after an appeal.
Ahmed claims her third examinations, which she failed, occurred in circumstances which violated a number of university policies. These include regulations on accommodation for illness, preparation time, and intervals between exams.
Ahmed is suing Dal on the grounds of misfeasance in the public office, an action that is brought against a public office for abuse or misuse of power. She is making her case tort, rather than judicial, which is how academic matters are usually dealt with.
Ahmed’s lawyer, Blair Mitchell, said taking the case through tort is, “an important and reasonably accessible manner of exercising the rule of law.”
Hilary Young, a University of New Brunswick law professor and an expert on tort law, says, “[Ahmed] is saying the way she was treated amounts to a wrong in and of itself, not just that the decision to expel her was wrongly made.
“If the Court ultimately finds in her favour, others with academic disputes based in malice may make tort claims rather than seeking judicial review of the decision.
“This is significant because courts tend to be reluctant to overturn academic decisions on judicial review, but in a tort action, the approach would be quite different.”
Young specified that misfeasance in public office is a hard tort to prove.
“You have to prove malicious intent on the part of the defendant, so it’s unlikely that there will now be a flood of misfeasance in [public office] claims against universities,” she says.
Dalhousie administration was unavailable for comment. The case is currently ongoing.
Recent Comments